The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN FULLAM, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss in this antitrust
case. Most of the issues involved have recently been decided by
my colleague Judge Robreno in his March 2, 2004 ruling in
Bellevue Drug Co. v. Advance PCS, C.A. No. 03-4731 (E.D. Pa.
March 2, 2004). I agree with Judge Robreno's rulings, and see no
need to repeat that discussion here.

With respect to the issues not addressed in the Bellevue Drug
Co. opinion, I have concluded as follows: BFF and NCPA do have
standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief under § 16 of
the Clayton Act. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple
Advertising Com., 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977); Pennsylvania
Psychiatric Soc'y v. Green Spring Health Servs., 280 F.3d 278
(3d Cir. 2002). I further conclude that the averments of the complaint with respect to the parental control of Merck & Co.,
Inc. over the defendant Medco Health Solutions, Inc. are, as a
matter of pleading, sufficient to withstand dismissal under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

An order follows. ORDER

AND NOW, this day of August 2004, upon consideration of
defendants' motions to dismiss, and plaintiffs' response, IT IS
ORDERED:

1. That the motions of the defendants Medco Health Solutions,
Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc. to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint are
DENIED.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.